I think the content owners are looking at what happened with iTunes and how it came to dominate the entire market and they are shitting their pants. They realize that the music industry needs Apple more than Apple needs them. All it takes is one or two major studios to give in and the rest will fall in line rather quickly for fear of missing out on the "good deals".

Apple will likely offer the better deals to that first "one or two" in order to get the ball rolling, but when you are the last studio holding out, Apple has little incentive to offer you good terms in your contract.

Ease of use isn't the real stumbling block here, it's getting the content onto the platform. Without the Reality Distortion Field that allowed iTunes Music Store to serve music from most major labels on the day it was released, the iPod would have been yet another MP3 player relegated to the dustbin of history.

If anything, television and movie studios have been even more reluctant to support streaming and I'm not sure Tim Cook is up to the task of convincing them to embrace the platform. It would be all too easy for them to build a TV with this great interface and excellent integration with iCloud and only the paltry selection of shows available on iTunes that you can use it with.

Nothing that Reuters cites gives any more credibility to the Television rumor than anything else. The deal with Epix could be for the AppleTV STB. I think some SOOO want this to be true that any content deal that mentions TV immediately becomes confirmation that Apple is making a TV.

It will be interesting to see what they can do here because right now, TV is a mess. Everything is set up around the revenue and business of cable TV and no one knows how to handle the transition to digital. I expect it to be a mess for a long time. But Apple has unparalleled power so it will be interesting to see if they can smooth things out.

I look forward to seeing Apps work on the Apple TV, with games and all kinds of content and interaction with iPad and iPhone I can see some cool stuff emerging. And that's worth a premium price. But without content, its not going to work. That's one area where I think Apple can throw its billions around - using it to secure content for its services. Can't they basically buy all major film studios if they want to by now?

Ease of use isn't the real stumbling block here, it's getting the content onto the platform. Without the Reality Distortion Field that allowed iTunes Music Store to serve music from most major labels on the day it was released, the iPod would have been yet another MP3 player relegated to the dustbin of history.

Speaking of reality distortion, the iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by more than 18 months on the Mac and 2 years on Windows. The iPod was by that point already the most popular MP3 player available and on its third generation when the iTunes Music Store was announced.

Making a TV simple is much harder than it seems. The real problem with TV isn't getting content to it, anybody with an HDMI cable can do that. The problem is in how many devices the consumer must use to get that content to it.

Most cable companies, and all satellite companies require a separate box to plug into your TV, essentially hijacking the TV manufacturer's user interface. This isn't clean or easy. If any company can make a TV that can do everything we want now, and for the foreseeable future, that company will soon dominate the market. At the very least, effect change unto the rest of the market playmakers.

Content providers want to control the "vision" of their products as much as they can. Cable Card was essentially killed on sight because it did away with add-on devices others could sell.

To be successful, any manufacturer, not just Apple, would need to create a TV that only needed one remote (seriously, have you counted how many remotes you have in your living room lately?) and did everything consumers want without having to switch to multiple sources, of which your media stand is holding multiple devices.

Most people I know have more than two devices connected. How can we get that number down to zero? That is the problem we all really want solved!

There's a big difference between "The company was allegedly talking to EPIX to stream movies to Apple's devices" and "Apple is building a TV". Apple already has a device for streaming to a TV, adding a new source stream to it is nice but not a big deal. A whole new product category like an Apple TV TV is something different.

@jandrese: "Without the Reality Distortion Field that allowed iTunes Music Store to serve music from most major labels on the day it was released, the iPod would have been yet another MP3 player relegated to the dustbin of history. "

What? The iPod was released in 2001, the store didn't open until 2003. The iPod was already a sales success when the store opened, and it was the success of the device that brought in all those companies. And Apple still had to cave to them on things like DRM.

Ease of use isn't the real stumbling block here, it's getting the content onto the platform. Without the Reality Distortion Field that allowed iTunes Music Store to serve music from most major labels on the day it was released, the iPod would have been yet another MP3 player relegated to the dustbin of history.

If anything, television and movie studios have been even more reluctant to support streaming and I'm not sure Tim Cook is up to the task of convincing them to embrace the platform. It would be all too easy for them to build a TV with this great interface and excellent integration with iCloud and only the paltry selection of shows available on iTunes that you can use it with.

iTunes selection paltry? Hardly... it is by far the broadest selection of any TV/movie streaming provider.

HBO content is one of the very few exceptions that isn't released within 24 hours of broadcast, and that is apparently due to historical contractual obligations between HBO and cable providers. HBO's delayed releases are galling, but it's by far the exception and not the norm.

I speak from experience; we cut cable and went all-Apple TV two years ago. If you are a light TV watcher and don't care about sports, it's much cheaper to spend $2-$3 to watch shows a la carte, plus $8 for a Netflix subscription, than it is to spend $100 a month for HD cable and a movie package. Plus, once you get used to ad-free TV, you really can't imagine it any other way. I couldn't go back to cable now.

I'm also of the belief that TVs need to become monitors. Mine has all these cool inputs and I use exactly 1 - an HDMI from my AV receiver. That does all the switching, powers the 5.1 speakers, scales the output to the TV.

When something better comes along, I add the device to my setup. TV is 4 year old 67" LED DLP. Still "cutting edge" because I can add a Roku (Woot last week), etc.

However, unless a TV had tons of RAM, storage, etc, it would not be "future-proof" - and if it did, it would be too expensive.

Even my 7 year old Panasonic projector is still in a good situation, as again, I can add devices to that setup as it is simply a 720p "monitor" - I still get Netflix, streaming via my TVIX boxes, etc. Again, I use exactly 1 input on that device

What? The iPod was released in 2001, the store didn't open until 2003. The iPod was already a sales success when the store opened, and it was the success of the device that brought in all those companies. And Apple still had to cave to them on things like DRM.

Apple didn't "cave to them on things like DRM", Apple wanted the DRM as much as the music industry. It's called "locking in". Apple loves DRM, its the reason all of Apple's biggest devices (iOS devices) are completely locked in DRM to the level they are now consoles and not computers. This is also why you can buy movies, books, ect... that are still locked in DRM.

And before someone wants to push that "well Job's wrote this saying he didn't want it", yeah, he wasn't being honest in that. Its called "PR" and not wanting to be caught with his pants down when that same year Amazon just finished getting the ability to sell DRM-free tracks on their store. You don't work as big with the recording companies to not hear other deals they are working on. Its why not all of Apples library went DRM-free, only some of it, the same ones Amazon managed to hammer out a deal to sell DRM. Trust me, if Apple wanted to get rid of DRM, they would also work on getting it off their movies, books, programs, ect....

I'm also of the belief that TVs need to become monitors. Mine has all these cool inputs and I use exactly 1 - an HDMI from my AV receiver. That does all the switching, powers the 5.1 speakers, scales the output to the TV.

When something better comes along, I add the device to my setup. TV is 4 year old 67" LED DLP. Still "cutting edge" because I can add a Roku (Woot last week), etc.

However, unless a TV had tons of RAM, storage, etc, it would not be "future-proof" - and if it did, it would be too expensive.

Even my 7 year old Panasonic projector is still in a good situation, as again, I can add devices to that setup as it is simply a 720p "monitor" - I still get Netflix, streaming via my TVIX boxes, etc. Again, I use exactly 1 input on that device

Right. My TV is 10 years old. It's 1080. My sound system is from 2001. It has optical digital inputs and 5.1 surround.

In that time span I've gone through three different DVRs, two different content providers, and three different computers.

What? The iPod was released in 2001, the store didn't open until 2003. The iPod was already a sales success when the store opened, and it was the success of the device that brought in all those companies. And Apple still had to cave to them on things like DRM.

Apple didn't "cave to them on things like DRM", Apple wanted the DRM as much as the music industry. It's called "locking in". Apple loves DRM, its the reason all of Apple's biggest devices (iOS devices) are completely locked in DRM to the level they are now consoles and not computers. This is also why you can buy movies, books, ect... that are still locked in DRM.

And before someone wants to push that "well Job's wrote this saying he didn't want it", yeah, he wasn't being honest in that. Its called "PR" and not wanting to be caught with his pants down when that same year Amazon just finished getting the ability to sell DRM-free tracks on their store. You don't work as big with the recording companies to not hear other deals they are working on. Its why not all of Apples library went DRM-free, only some of it, the same ones Amazon managed to hammer out a deal to sell DRM. Trust me, if Apple wanted to get rid of DRM, they would also work on getting it off their movies, books, programs, ect....

Incorrect. Amazon got the DRM free tracks first because they agreed to sell tracks at various price points where Apple wanted to stick with the ¢99 per track $9.99 per album model. When Apple acquiesced the labels dropped their DRM demand. As for other media types, let’s take your assertion if Apple wanted to get rid of it they could, does the same not hold true for Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, et. al., the most likely and actual reason is book publishers and movie studios want DRM.

It's great for Apple and for their shareholders. The RDF will make people think it's great for them too. It really isn't.

What if it actually is great for them? A similar argument is made about manual transmission vs. automatic transmission cars; lack of control, inferior performance, inferior gas mileage, etc… Most people don’t care; they want to get from Point A to Point B. Home Entertainment is the same thing, it’s why for decades people have been making millions selling universal remotes. Someone who does “crack it” – and I’ll be honest here if the current AppleTV is any indication then Apple certainly isn’t close – but anyone who does will be successful and have happy customers.

What? The iPod was released in 2001, the store didn't open until 2003. The iPod was already a sales success when the store opened, and it was the success of the device that brought in all those companies. And Apple still had to cave to them on things like DRM.

Apple didn't "cave to them on things like DRM", Apple wanted the DRM as much as the music industry. It's called "locking in". Apple loves DRM, its the reason all of Apple's biggest devices (iOS devices) are completely locked in DRM to the level they are now consoles and not computers. This is also why you can buy movies, books, ect... that are still locked in DRM.

And before someone wants to push that "well Job's wrote this saying he didn't want it", yeah, he wasn't being honest in that. Its called "PR" and not wanting to be caught with his pants down when that same year Amazon just finished getting the ability to sell DRM-free tracks on their store. You don't work as big with the recording companies to not hear other deals they are working on. Its why not all of Apples library went DRM-free, only some of it, the same ones Amazon managed to hammer out a deal to sell DRM. Trust me, if Apple wanted to get rid of DRM, they would also work on getting it off their movies, books, programs, ect....

Apple stopped DRMing music the moment the labels allowed it. If Hollywood would allow DRM free movies apple would distribute movies without DRM.

Of course, if you're operating under the assumption that everyone is lying and the big evil company is out to get you, then I suppose it would be hard to persuade you no matter the facts at hand.

What? The iPod was released in 2001, the store didn't open until 2003. The iPod was already a sales success when the store opened, and it was the success of the device that brought in all those companies. And Apple still had to cave to them on things like DRM.

Apple didn't "cave to them on things like DRM", Apple wanted the DRM as much as the music industry. It's called "locking in". Apple loves DRM, its the reason all of Apple's biggest devices (iOS devices) are completely locked in DRM to the level they are now consoles and not computers. This is also why you can buy movies, books, ect... that are still locked in DRM.

And before someone wants to push that "well Job's wrote this saying he didn't want it", yeah, he wasn't being honest in that. Its called "PR" and not wanting to be caught with his pants down when that same year Amazon just finished getting the ability to sell DRM-free tracks on their store. You don't work as big with the recording companies to not hear other deals they are working on. Its why not all of Apples library went DRM-free, only some of it, the same ones Amazon managed to hammer out a deal to sell DRM. Trust me, if Apple wanted to get rid of DRM, they would also work on getting it off their movies, books, programs, ect....

Apple stopped DRMing music the moment the labels allowed it. If Hollywood would allow DRM free movies apple would distribute movies without DRM.

Of course, if you're operating under the assumption that everyone is lying and the big evil company is out to get you, then I suppose it would be hard to persuade you no matter the facts at hand.

And I'm guessing that Apple for many years showed 0 interest in removing DRM and only did it when Amazon went to do it just is a fluke?

Edit: and a remote similar to TiVos. How fricken hard is it to design a remote? Tsk tsk.

Same here. I bought a Samsung 8000-series HDTV because I wanted a good panel and a slim bezel, and Amazon was offering a good deal over the holidays for the 2011 models. I could care less about the Smart TV features because my PS3 and Xbox do everything better than the Samsung apps. I would love nothing more to see a line of high end monitors for home theater usage where you are paying for nothing but the best panel and video processors. I use only one HDMI input because my surround receiver does all the switching, and the internal speakers are turned off because of the external sound system.

As far as remotes go, I don't really have much use for the TV remotes unless I am tweaking settings. I much prefer my Harmony One, but even if you don't have one of those, it is easy enough to program a Tivo remote to control the basics.

For it to function properly as a HDTV, it'll have to have HDMI inputs for connecting Blu-Ray players or game systems otherwise no one will buy it. There's no way they would be able to prevent you from plugging in a Roku to use competing services without driving away customers.

That said, I just don't think an Apple branded TV is realistic. There's just too much emphasis on price in that market for them to be able to sell at a high enough price point for it to be profitable, and unless they can roll out some crazy a la carte subscription service there's just not enough differentiation that they can do to make their products stand out when compared to Samsung and other manufacturers that already are offering slim, sleek televisions with integrated apps.

The RDF will make people think it's great for them too. It really isn't.

What a thing to say. Can we put this meme to rest, please? You may be smarter than most people, but they aren't so dumb that they need you to tell them what to like. Lots and lots of people buy Apple products. If they were simply duped by the magical posthumous persuasion powers of Steve Jobs, or perhaps by all their iPad wielding friends, into buying an aluminum-gilt piece of shit, they wouldn't keep coming back for more. Give them some credit.

If you don't like Apple stuff, that's your prerogative—I won't accuse you of buying an Android phone just because you harbor anti-Apple spite and that, were you freed of it, you would see that you'd be better off with an iPhone.

I can't believe I'm defending the intelligence of the masses... there goes my elitist snob card

Nothing that Reuters cites gives any more credibility to the Television rumor than anything else. The deal with Epix could be for the AppleTV STB. I think some SOOO want this to be true that any content deal that mentions TV immediately becomes confirmation that Apple is making a TV.

The RDF will make people think it's great for them too. It really isn't.

What a thing to say. Can we put this meme to rest, please? You may be smarter than most people, but they aren't so dumb that they need you to tell them what to like. Lots and lots of people buy Apple products. If they were simply duped by the magical posthumous persuasion powers of Steve Jobs, or perhaps by all their iPad wielding friends, into buying an aluminum-gilt piece of shit, they wouldn't keep coming back for more. Give them some credit.

If you don't like Apple stuff, that's your prerogative—I won't accuse you of buying an Android phone just because you harbor anti-Apple spite and that, were you freed of it, you would see that you'd be better off with an iPhone.

I can't believe I'm defending the intelligence of the masses... there goes my elitist snob card

LOL. Assume much? Would you like a jump to conclusions mat? I have an iphone and an ipad.

Just because this is Ars do not assume that someone's opinions are based on their personal preferences or brand loyalty or fanboysm or whatever. I work in the industry and I have my opinions based on what I see there.

Edit: and a remote similar to TiVos. How fricken hard is it to design a remote? Tsk tsk.

+1No way will I ever buy a TV that is also connected to the NET.And if the only way I can buy a future plasma is a NET Connected Model I will make sure those functions never connect.I can definately see the TV Made shortly that also watches you as in Big Brother.

Ease of use isn't the real stumbling block here, it's getting the content onto the platform. Without the Reality Distortion Field that allowed iTunes Music Store to serve music from most major labels on the day it was released, the iPod would have been yet another MP3 player relegated to the dustbin of history.

Speaking of reality distortion, the iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by more than 18 months on the Mac and 2 years on Windows. The iPod was by that point already the most popular MP3 player available and on its third generation when the iTunes Music Store was announced.

That's what's generally known as the HDF, or the Hater Distortion Field.

haha, also, i really hate visiting relatives whose cable service offers a foreign system of channel navigation to what i use. you get used to your service, but coming across another one you remember how ridiculous it is.

Are you sure about that? The TV industry is very low margin, and customers usually shop based on price. The higher priced TVs have reached saturation point; TV companies can no longer sell you on amazing picture quality & 3D because everyone is satisfied with their existing TVs (or the economy is still bad enough they are OK with holding onto their TVs a while longer). Either way, the TV industry is very price sensitive, and companies like Samsung and LG have their hands in thousand different pies to make sure their revenues are covered.

You can bet that Apple won't be making its own displays; they buy them from Samsung already. So right off the bat, whomever their supplier will be is going to make sure Apple can't undercut them by charging Apple enough of a premium that Apple's TV will be 10-15% more expensive unless Apple wants to take a loss on it.

Are you sure about that? The TV industry is very low margin, and customers usually shop based on price. The higher priced TVs have reached saturation point; TV companies can no longer sell you on amazing picture quality & 3D because everyone is satisfied with their existing TVs (or the economy is still bad enough they are OK with holding onto their TVs a while longer). Either way, the TV industry is very price sensitive, and companies like Samsung and LG have their hands in thousand different pies to make sure their revenues are covered.

You can bet that Apple won't be making its own displays; they buy them from Samsung already. So right off the bat, whomever their supplier will be is going to make sure Apple can't undercut them by charging Apple enough of a premium that Apple's TV will be 10-15% more expensive unless Apple wants to take a loss on it.

Samsung isn't a content provider. Apple is. That's where they will make money. Reason why Apple wants to sell you a TV is the same reason why Amazon wants to sell you a Kindle tablet.

Also, this Apple TV will probably be a 42 inch... not too small not too big. They love selling the same thing to everyone. A 42 inch Apple TV with the same panel as a 42 inch Samsung (although only geeks will ever know that), and it will cost $800-900. And people will still buy it because it's an Apple and because it will have a pretty industrial design.

Ease of use isn't the real stumbling block here, it's getting the content onto the platform. Without the Reality Distortion Field that allowed iTunes Music Store to serve music from most major labels on the day it was released, the iPod would have been yet another MP3 player relegated to the dustbin of history.

Speaking of reality distortion, the iPod predates the iTunes Music Store by more than 18 months on the Mac and 2 years on Windows. The iPod was by that point already the most popular MP3 player available and on its third generation when the iTunes Music Store was announced.

You forget that the first three versions of the iPod were pretty sluggish moving off of the shelves. Their sales figures were blowing away everything else in the industry, but that's because the industry was full of crap that nobody wanted. It wasn't until the iTunes music store came out that the sales exploded into the tens of millions per year.

And I'm guessing that Apple for many years showed 0 interest in removing DRM and only did it when Amazon went to do it just is a fluke?

It was widely covered, including here at Ars, that the labels were using Amazon to offer DRM free tracks, hoping it would improve their popularity versus iTunes and reduce Apple's power over them. Didn't work out so well.

Of course, if you're operating under the assumption that everyone is lying and the big evil company is out to get you, then I suppose it would be hard to persuade you no matter the facts at hand.

And I'm guessing that Apple for many years showed 0 interest in removing DRM and only did it when Amazon went to do it just is a fluke?

The music industry insisted on DRM. Apple took them to the limits (allowing multiple cd burns, multiple computers / devices), for Apples dictated price of $.99 for music they agreed to a specific list of DRM features. When the music industry gave in on DRM then Apple gave in on price. They released the lock on DRM and Apple allowed them to up their prices. Sounds like a pretty fair trade to me.